Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

On "Real Science Radio", two episodes give evidence refuting the Big Bang. The audio sections are about half an hour each, and there is information to read at the links as well. Part 1 is here, Part 2 is here.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 29, 2013

One of the strongest evidences against evolution and in favor of creation is, in my view, the wide variety found in nature. Common sense would imply that there would be much less variety as things evolved. Instead, we can wonder, "Why would something evolve that way, and most other creatures didn't?"

Water Strider (family Gerridae)

For example, consider the bug that is often called the Water Strider (or Water Bug, among others). It walks, runs, or seemingly skips on the water. Without sinking. Why do you suppose that is?

Water striders skim across ponds and streams as if skating on ice. How do they “walk on water” while staying completely dry?A
closer look at water striders’ feet provides the surprising answer.
Many other bugs stick like glue when they touch water, but the water
strider’s feet are covered with thousands of fuzzy little hairs, called
microsetae, that trap air and create a floating cushion.These
needle-shaped strands are dozens of times narrower than a human hair and
coated with a special wax. Each strand also is covered with an orderly
arrangement of microscopic channels, or nanogrooves. When wet, the
grooves trap tiny air bubbles. The result is an effective
water-repellent, or hydrophobic, barrier. Taking advantage of the
natural surface tension or “stickiness” of water itself, the airborne
strider remains high and dry.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

In our previous exciting episode, we saw that proponents of evolution work outside the realms of science in order to further their worldview. No matter what the evidence actually shows, if it conflicts with evolutionary theories, there will be an explanation conjured up so they can attempt to save face.

Wikimedia Commons/jurvetson

For instance, the sea snake. There are different kinds, with different sized heads. Evolution (treated as a living entity with decision-making power) has the answer.

I once debated an evolution professor who explained that evolution has
tremendous explanatory power. But what exactly does this mean, and is it
a good thing? Everyone knows that evolution explains that the species
evolved gradually, but for new forms appearing abruptly in the fossil
record evolution explains that the species evolved rapidly. Likewise,
evolution explains that similarities in species derive from a common
ancestor, but for species that are too distant evolution explains that
the similarities in the species arose independently. Or again, evolution
explains that biological variation is random and not intelligent, but
for variation that responds to environmental challenges evolution
explains that it created a fantastic adaptive machine that creates such
variation. It seems that evolution can explain a great variety of
outcomes, even opposing outcomes.

Monday, March 25, 2013

Science does not support evolution. There are two distinct signs of desperation from Darwin's Stormtroopers that support the idea that they know their evidence is paltry at best. One is the vituperative and obsessive nature of their attacks on creationists. Since they cannot refute the science that is presented, they seek to demonize people (an exceptionally childish tactic that I find very puzzling indeed, because they have nothing to gain). Ridiculing and defaming people does not make evolution true.

A second sign of evolutionists' desperation is the amazing level of imagination in the "explanations" that they offer.

Instead of using objectivity, actual science and dealing with reality, evolutionists delve deeply into "maybe", "perhaps", "it could be", "scientist think", "could have" and other speculations dressed up and presented as facts to the science-worshiping populace. Meanwhile, they deceive us, and themselves, that they are operating with facts in the real world.This is glaringly obvious in propaganda of "OOL" (Origin of Life) studies. Astrobiologists present material that would have been rejected from Strange Tales.

Why aren’t philosophers of science shaming origin-of-life researchers out of the science department? OOL theories depend on imagination, not empirical evidence, for their broad-brush conclusions.

Astrobiology Magazine promised “New Insights into the Origin of Life” but delivered only imaginary inferences. Researchers studied living archaea, assuming them to be ancient, then used “could” and “may have” to conclude that DNA came late in the evolution of cells. But then the article mentioned 526 genes essential to life in a simple archaeal cell, and 121 essential proteins the scientists knew nothing about (see online book for the probability of getting even one gene by chance). Added to that, one of the OOL researchers admitted that DNA without all its complex machinery is useless. “DNA by itself is a rock,” he said. “You need all these other systems to make the DNA become a living cell.” He provided zero evidence that those systems could have arisen from a primordial soup.

Another entry in Astrobiology Magazine promised “Evidence that Comets Could Have Seeded Life on Earth” (the word could being the tip-off for imagination). But the reader will not find the word evidence in the body of the article–only talk of a simulation in contrived lab conditions. Even so, the Berkeley team manufactured nine amino acids and a couple of dipeptides at best, not specifying if the amino acids were used by living cells or were one-handed (see online book). Amino acids by themselves are as far from life as individual letters are from a sophisticated book.

Friday, March 22, 2013

An assortment of "simple" life forms, and even more complex, can survive radiation, heat, cold and more (such as tardigrades). They present a tremendous challenge for evolutionists to explain how and why they evolved. Not so much for the creationist, however.

Could anything live in a boiling mudhole? Actually, in recent years, many new species have been discovered in many places which were thought to be far too inhospitable to support life.

Not just in boiling mud, but in steaming volcanic craters, in the rocky chimneys that grow above deep-ocean volcanic vents spewing forth hot salty water (‘black smokers’), in areas of extreme cold in the Antarctic, and even in the hyper-salty Dead Sea in Israel, a treasure trove of living organisms has been revealed. These ‘extremophiles’ (Greek -philos = ‘loving’) can tolerate astonishing extremes of temperature, acidity, pressure, dryness and salinity.For example, Sulfolobus solfataricus can survive to 88ºC (190ºF) near fuming sulfurous volcanic vents (see photo in Creation magazine p. 42). Pyrococcus furiosus (‘furious fireball’) tolerates 100ºC (212ºF). Even more amazing is Pyrolobus fumarii, which lives within the walls of black smokers, and which not only survives, but can actually grow at temperatures up to 113ºC (235ºF). Ferroplasma acidarmanus thrives in acid mine drainage (pH0) in California—a brew of sulfuric acid and high levels of arsenic, cadmium and other toxic chemicals.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

by Robert SorensenI know someone who seems to be alarmed at the proclamations of proponents of evolution. "Can this be refuted?" There seems to be an element of fear involved, and it does not need to be there.How should a creationist deal with something that appears to affirm evolution?Learn the BasicsThere is a wealth of solid creation science available online. Videos, DVDs, articles, lectures (in video or audio formats) and so on from reputable creation organizations can be purchased, and many things are there waiting for you at no cost. There are links on this site (including YouTube playlists, linked in the margin on the right), and the materials presented here are specially selected. If you follow the links to the articles, you can find literally thousands more articles from those sites.Learn Critical Thinking SkillsAs above, when you learn some basic information, you will also be exposed to logical thinking and refutation of evolutionary propaganda techniques. Also, there is a link at the top (and right here) to "Logic Lessons", which show some logical fallacies that atheists and evolutionists frequently use. It is important to be able to spot errors and deception, and it will help your own thinking processes. Also, if you're presenting evidence or having discussions yourself, you need to learn to use as few errors as possible so your message is not compromised.Learn to be SkepticalSomehow, being "skeptical" has become a caricature of itself. For some people, they proudly say, "I'm a skeptic", which means that they reject all evidence supporting creation and for the existence of God. That is not trueskepticism, it is simply clinging to faith in naturalism. No, we need to have healthy skepticism. Ask questions. Let me give a couple of examples.

Chemical analysis of the powder on Mars done by the Curiosity rover shows that rocks had sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and carbon. From these chemicals, which are common in the universe, scientists speculate that there may have been life on Mars. Are they remnants of ancient laundry loads and detergent residue? Or just...common chemicals?

We can ask questions. Supposedly, that is how science advances. It is certainly essential for learning! Is there evidence for the claims? Has someone figured out a workable, believable mechanism for the claim they're making? And so on.

Learn that Evolutionists are MotivatedEspecially the ill-informed but very enthusiastic propagandists of evolution on the Interweb.Evolution is a pseudoscientific foundation for the religion of atheism, and evolution itself has a religious nature. It is also foundational to liberal theology and New Age religions. Not only do people want to justify their aberrant beliefs, they seek to convert people away from true science and the God of the Bible.Look, I have no problem in telling people how to think (using reason, healthy skepticism, examination, getting a background in useful information, using resources and so on). Evolutionists (especially atheopaths) want to tell you what to think. They not only have disdain for people with opposing views, but have an agenda to stop people from expressing their views. This is contrary to the true spirit of scientific inquiry. But truth and reason are on our side. Science and Scripture support the Creator, not evolution. Keep reading, viewing, listening, learning — and thinking.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, March 18, 2013

The rough summary of the atheistic evolutionary version of life, the universe and everything is: There was nothing. Then, this nothing exploded, which caused stars, planets, galaxies and stuff like that. Through time and chance, life happened ("spontaneous generation", an unscientific philosophy taught by Aristotle). With the help of mutations and natural selection, time and chance made life evolve, upward, more and more complex. You are the product of no purpose, the slave of chemical impulses in your brain. There is no God, no final judgment, no eternal reward or punishment. When you die, you're worm food. And they want to take away our beliefs for that worldview? Not hardly!

To be consistent with atheistic materialism, free will is impossible. We are reduced to chemistry and to environment, which in turn influences our chemistry. The one who claims that there is no God is responding to his chemistry. (For that matter, he has no right to complain about horrific murders, because it is simply one or more bits of rearranged pond scum eliminating other bits of rearranged pond scum.) So, it follows that he has no right to criticize those of us who do believe in God; if we praise God, show how science refutes evolution, affirm the truth of recent creation, ban obstreperous pinheads from our groups, well, it's not our fault because our chemistry makes it happen. The biblical worldview makes sense of the human condition and offers hope.

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly... [including the idea that] human free will is nonexistent... Free will is a disastrous and mean social myth.”—William Provine, Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University.

In The Descent of Man, Darwin explained human behavior largely as the function of pre-determined—and often anti-social—instincts. For all of Darwin’s praise of man’s sociability, he wrote that “it cannot be maintained that the social instincts are ordinarily stronger in man, or have become stronger through long-continued habit, than the instincts… of self-preservation, hunger, lust, vengeance, &c.” What did this mean in practice? “At the moment of action,” wrote Darwin, “man will no doubt be apt to follow the stronger impulse; and though this may occasionally prompt him to the noblest deeds, it will far more commonly lead him to gratify his own desires at the expense of other men.”

Saturday, March 16, 2013

The fact that the Nazi worldview drew heavily from Darwinism has been thoroughly documented, despite the denials of evolutionists. Dr. Jerry Bergman has done considerable research on this topic, and has written a heavily-documented book.

"Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry,
anthropology, geology and microbiology at the college and university
level for over 40 years.He has over 900
science publications to his credit, in twelve languages. He has
published 30 books and monographs and been a consultant for over 20
science textbooks. He appeared on Crosstalk to discuss his latest book, Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview. It is subtitled, 'How the
Nazi Eugenic Crusade for a superior race caused the greatest holocaust
in world history.'"

Friday, March 15, 2013

Are you familiar with the expression, "A place for everything, and everything in its place"? Well, now you are. We have seen many times that so many creatures are very intricate. There are numerous features that must be in place and working together, or nothing works at all. One must be very uninformed or very credulous indeed to believe that such details could be the result of time, chance, and random mutations evolving piecemeal. Nothing would function, make sense, or "need" to evolve a little at a time. Yet people desperately cling to evolutionism, even though it is ludicrous to do so.

Ironically, NASA has studied the skin of the giraffe for application in space suits to help the blood circulation of the astronauts. Designers studying the work of the Master Designer...An excellent example of many working parts in harmony, all showing the skill of the Creator, is the giraffe. Especially that long neck.

The giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) is an even-toed ungulate (hoofed animal). It is also the world’s largest ruminant (animals that partly digest their food and then regurgitate it to chew as ‘cud’). The giraffe is placed in the family Giraffidae, a group that contains only two animals— the other being the Okapi. This is a curious animal in its own right, with a giraffe-like head, zebra-striped legs and hindquarters, and a body shape much like that of a large gazelle.

Far more than just a beautiful and impressive animal to look at, the giraffe has a whole range of interesting design features. These mostly either involve supporting its amazing neck or are in some way related to it. Long and powerful, this 225 kilogram (500 pound) structure enables the giraffe to reach foliage that other species can only dream of.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

What do you get when you have evolutionary scientists using intricate equipment, controlled conditions, bacteria DNA, induced mutations and getting lackluster results? Why, proof of evolution, of course! The rest of us would say that their results show that evolution is not a logical conclusion. Instead, the logical conclusion is that there is a Creator who makes things that are resistant to mutation, and evolution is a fundamentally flawed explanation.

Researchers recently announced the first systematic laboratory-induced
mutation of successive amino acids in a nearly complete simple bacterial
protein. The results demonstrated how protein chemistry and
structure, in even the most simple of life’s proteins, are irreducibly
complex. The research also showed how the random processes ascribed to
genetic mutations are unable to propel favorable evolutionary progress
that could lead to new selectable traits.

Proteins are chains of amino acids that are coded by the information
contained in DNA. Three successive nucleotide bases of DNA code for a
single amino acid of a protein, and cells use 20 different amino acids.
The specific order of amino acids is required, not only for basic
protein functionality, but also for optimized functionality.

In this study, researchers successively changed the DNA code of a
bacterial gene to individually mutate every amino acid in a simple
bacterial protein of 83 amino acids in length. They then tested the
ability of that protein to interact with its target chemical—a ligand,
which is a binding molecule in the cell. The section of protein that
interacts with a ligand is called the “active site.” The researchers
also tested the ability of successively mutated amino acids in the
active site of the protein to bind to an artificial substrate.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Back with my unregistered assault keyboard, bringing you news that refutes evolutionism and affirms that the evidence supports creation science.

As we keep seeing, evolutionists seem to take whatever is found and "spin" it to mean that evolution is true. Although it is natural to see evidence through one's worldview spectacles, it seems that people would grow weary of constant fabrications and the defying of logic. In this case, camels have been found in the arctic. The speculation is that they are 3-1/2 millions years old, but yet again, those deep-time-refuting soft tissues interfere with a good story. And yet again, creationists do not have these problems in dealing with facts.

Fossils from a large species of camel living in Canada’s high arctic contain soft tissue.

What’s an iconic desert creature doing in the freezing wastes of the north? The BBC News reported the discovery of 30 fragments of camel leg bones found on Ellesmere Island. Some of them had collagen, even though dated in the evolutionary scheme at 3.5 million years old. Evolutionists date the earliest camels at 45 million years old, but were astonished to find specimens this far north.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Madagascar is both fascinating and puzzling. Creatures live (and had lived) there that are unique on Earth. The article linked below presents some ideas on how animal life came to Madagascar after the Noachian Flood, using a creationist model.

The English sailor Robert Drury is famous for his shipwreck on the
island of Madagascar in the 1700s. We know nothing about him except the
scant words in his journal.

His mysterious tale
perfectly fits the mysterious land he crashed into. Sometimes called
“the eighth continent,” this island—about the size of France—enthralls
us with its unique wildlife, its vivid colors and diverse landscapes,
and its hints of past geologic upheaval and radical species
diversification. As tantalizing as these marvels are, however, much
about Madagascar’s history eludes us, as if the details melt away when
we look closely.

The amazing animals that live there—or once did—hold secrets that
may help unlock mysteries about how the creatures that left Noah’s Ark
quickly resettled the earth after the Flood.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

My wife came into the room and noticed my moist eyes. Someone I had respected had moved on to his permanent home with Jesus. I'm not ashamed to admit that I had an emotional moment. Although I was not a personal friend of Dr. Duane Gish, he had made an impact on me.I met Dr. Gish, Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. John Morris and Ken Ham at a creation science conference in Schaumburg, Illinois in 1991. Heh, I just remembered that the conference people needed some help with the projectors for films between presentations, so I jumped at the chance to do that.

Interesting...Dr. Gish was one of the "fathers" of the modern creation science movement. His handwriting was rather like my own father's.

Although they remained faithful to their calling, I did not. I fell away from the faith for about fifteen years. After I renewed my commitment to Christ, my creationist calling came back, stronger than ever.Duane Gish was loved and respected by many. He was also hated by some, as is evidenced by postings and articles by atheopaths on the Web. Dr. Henry Morris is considered to be one of the founders of the modern creationist movement in 1961, and Dr. Gish was with him in the founding of the Institute for Creation Research in 1963, retiring at the age of 84.

Although Duane Gish is now with the Lord (and probably having a reunion with his old friend Dr. Henry Morris as well), his influence is far from over. Their influence is far from over. Creation science is growing, creation ministries are increasing, and new generations are carrying on with ever-increasing momentum.Here are some articles and remembrances about him:

In our last exciting episode, we explored how evolutionists speak with forked tongues. First, they say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Then, they spend time explaining and attempting to defend it. Although they try to distance themselves from the insurmountable problem of giving a rational explanation for abiogenesis, the problem remains.Secularists do not want to admit that the evidence points to the Creator (it would mean that we had better find out what he has to say!), and they postulate some pretty outrageous things. The amazing design and complexity of the universe is written off to mere chance, we're the lucky ones in the multiverse. Add to that the idea that since life could not have arisen here, it must have arisen out there. Life came from space. Just ask the aliens who planted it here. Yes, this fundamentally flawed tale is considered by some to be a serious scientific hypothesis, even though there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

By the way, note how Dawkins spoke with the typical authority of an evolutionist: Probably, perhaps...

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

The evidence is against abiogenesis, and many evolutionists are no longer attempting to defend it. They will make inane remarks like, "Evolution is not about the origin of life, but rather, the origin of species". Then they proceed to fail in their attempts to explain the origin of life and the origin of species through their "just so" stories, and the discredited Miller-Urey experiment. I have encountered Darwin's Cheerleaders who insist that evolutionists do not discuss abiogenesis. That is simply untrue [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. David Attenborough had a television show with fanciful tales on the origin of life. Worse, his stories about its origin and development were misleading, as they went against real science. Creationists do not have these logic and science problems.

In this BBC-Discovery TV program1 Sir David Attenborough tells us his purpose is to look at the origin of life and for the very first living creature that appeared on Earth. As he presents the evolutionist worldview, we shall examine what he says and compare it with the biblical worldview.

He begins by showing us a rock surface in Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire, England, and he says: “A discovery was made that transformed our understanding of that mystery of mysteries, the origin of life.” In 1957 a schoolboy named Roger Mason found a fossil in these rocks that evolutionists said were 600 million years old [i.e. Precambrian]. Viewers see a computer-reconstruction of this fossil as a leaf-like plant growing on the sea-floor in darkness. It has been given the genus name Charnia.

Monday, March 4, 2013

It seems that whenever there is a new discover in the cosmos or the life sciences, evolution somehow gets the credit. It's almost as if Evolution is an intelligent designing entity, innit? First, microRNA was dismissed until "EvolutionDidIt". Now, circular RNAs are adding to the mix, and guess what? EvolutionDidIt. This is too often what is considered proof for evolution: A simple declaration for those incapable of critical thinking to joyfully spread around. In reality, it is absurd to believe such things are the product of time, chance, mutations and other random processes.

Remember when microRNA burst onto the scene a few years back and
revolutionized our knowledge of cellular regulatory processes?
Evolutionists had to scramble because, after all, when you say your
theory explains something and it turns out you don’t really understand
that something, well it looks like you don’t know what you’re talking
about. It wasn’t much of a scramble though, because evolutionists can
pretty much say anything they want, at any time, about their theory. So
when microRNA burst onto the scene, evolutionists said “oh, evolution
did that.” Well now it is happening all over again, but this time with
long RNA which often interacts with microRNA, and this week it was with long RNA that is circular.

Evolutionists once dismissed
these long, circular RNA macromolecules—which can be thousands of
nucleotides long—as rare genetic accidents or experimental artifacts.
Now circular RNA appears to be, err, an abundant and crucial part of
genetic regulation. There are thousands of them, probably fulfilling a
multitude of functional roles in what one evolutionist admitted is “a
hidden, parallel universe” in the molecular world.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Evolutionists are good at Making Things Up™ to try and bolster their evolutionary worldview. Vestigial organs, the idea that something is leftover from a creature's evolutionary past, have been largely abandoned by evolutionary scientists. But enthusiastic supporters still see what is not there: "Look! Whales have bumps. Must be leftover legs that are evolving away". No, not really. Besides, if something is being lost, that's the opposite of evolution.Dr. Jerry Bergman is interviewed on Bob Enyart's "Real Science Radio" show and discusses the failings of whale evolution and their alleged vestigial organs. You can listen or download, either is free, here.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 1, 2013

Not only are ants industrious and organized (yet without an overseer or paying union dues), but more is being discovered about they way they can communicate. Some can even use sound. For such a thing to happen, several complex features must be in place at the same time — time, chance, random processes, mutations and the like become more and more unbelievable as our knowledge about how they were created increases.

New surprises revealing complex bio-engineering keep emerging as
evolutionary scientists continue to unwittingly obey the biblical
command to "observe the ant"(Proverbs 6:6;
30:25). The latest bio-engineering discovery is that a key component of
ant colony survival is based on sound (acoustic) communication systems.

One of the long-standing paradigms of animal communication is the use
of airborne chemical messages called pheromones. Ants use pheromones to
leave chemical trails that can be followed by other members and to also
identify which nest an ant is from, along with its social status in the
colony. Now, scientists can add yet another layer of complexity and
communication in ant colonies based on acoustics.

Scientists have been studying a type of ant commonly found in Europe.
This ant has a specialized appendage on its abdomen that it strokes with
its hind legs to create sound signals. Other ants can detect and
process these signals, resulting in various complex social responses
that are key to survival of the colony. Several years ago, researchers
found that, in adult ants, these signals can act like an emergency
beacon when an ant is threatened by a predator.